A blog to help inspire organized resistance to the ALP's ill-advised, counter-productive and potentially totalitarian plan to impose mandatory ISP-based filtering on all residential internet feeds by default. This is *not* about the filth they are trying to block. This is about the Orwellian mechanism they are building to do it.

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

10 Questions About The Mandatory ISP-level Filter

Readers might like to consider using this list of questions as the basis of a letter to their local Labor MP or Senator.

Has the probability of inadvertent exposure to Refused Classification material by adults been quantified? If not, is this probability judged to be: low, moderate or high?

Have the consequences of inadvertent exposure to Refused Classification material by adults been measured? Are these thought to be minor, major or serious?

Has the quantity of potentially Refused Classification material in existence on the Internet been estimated in either absolute or relative terms?

Does the Government have an estimate or measure of the percentage of potentially Refused Classification material on the Internet that is currently Refused Classification? What is that estimate?

Does the Government have a coverage goal for the Refused Classification list in terms of the percentage of potentially Refused Classification material that is actually refused classification? What is that goal?

Is the Government concerned that in exempting X-18+ material from the specifications of the mandatory filter that it may be implicitly condoning the consumption of X-18+ rated materials by Australian adults?

Does the Government believe it is acceptable for Australian adults who encounter X-18+ or potentially Refused Classification material on the Internet to treat such material as not Refused Classification until such time as ACMA makes a definitive decision otherwise?

Does the Government believe that Australian adults who encounter such X-18+ or potentially Refused Classification material should use their own judgment to decide for themselves whether they should remain exposed to such material?

If the Government does believe that all Australian adults should retain for themselves the responsibility of deciding what material is, and is not, acceptable to view, why is the mandatory filter required?

What political benefit does the ALP gain by successfully sheparding enabling legislation for the mandatory ISP-level filter through both houses of parliament?

4 comments:

...And a couple more, which writers should insist are answered by Rudd, not fobbed off to Conroy:

Labor's 2007 pre-election policy on filtering specified that it would be mandatory that ISPs offer a 'clean feed' to households with children. The party's policy has since morphed into a mandatory filter that has no opt-out for households without children.

Mr Rudd, as leader of the Labor Party, kindly answer the following:

* When did the ALP's filtering policy change to become mandatory for all Australian internet users?

* Why was the policy changed?

* Who authorised the policy change?

* Given the present 'mandatory for all users' policy is markedly different to the 'opt-out' policy presented to voters prior to the election, do you believe Labor have a mandate to enact the 'mandatory for all users' version?

The Porn Report

Highly (though not universally) recommended as a serious attempt to understand the role of pornography in contemporary Australian society, one which debunks much of the moral panic surrounding the subject.

Commenting Rules

I reserve the right to remove comments, especially anonymous comments, which attempt to argue the position that possession of child porn should be legal.
This is not my position, and I do not wish my blog to be associated with that position. If others wish to defend this position they are welcome to do so, but they can do it elsewhere, not here.
Where I delete such comments, I will leave a stub to indicate that this has occurred.